BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting Obama's citizen...

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider Friday whether to take up a lawsuit challenging President-elect Barack Obama 's U.S. citizenship, a continuation of a New Jersey case embraced by some opponents of Obama's ... Full Story

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159487 Jun 13, 2013
wojar wrote:

<quoted text>
Population bottleneck analysis of the human genome has revealed that humans emerged as a group, thousands of them. There was never a population bottleneck as extreme as a single mating pair. The single mating pair story is exactly that, a story.
The DNA evidence from both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome unequivocally establishes that both species are descended from a common ancestor. The biblical account of first humans being immortal but who became mortal after 'sin' is simply busted. If there were a first human, whether you call that person Adam or Eve, all of their cousins, brothers, sisters, and clan members were non-human? And Adam's mother was not human? Nonsense. The data makes it a dead cinch conclusion. The born immortal Adam and Eve first human mating pair story is a myth.
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quite amusing, quite stupid and naive but amusing none the less! LMAO
The typical schoolyard bully answer who does not understand one iota of what he just attempted to read LMAO (LRS tm reg'd).

As I've often said, and I repeat :

Albert Einstein : "Yes, class, E=MC2 "

Justice ha ha LRS raises hand

Albert Einstein : "Yes, justice ha ha LRS"?

Justice ha ha LRS : "Dumbazzbastard buttflapper"

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159488 Jun 13, 2013
Nazrat wrote:
Ed Snowden voted for Obama..... twice!
So? Twice in the same election or once each in 2008 and 2012?

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159489 Jun 13, 2013
Nazrat wrote:
Ed Snowden voted for Obama..... twice!
Er, source, please. Should be easy , you STATED he voted twice for Obama, not "I think or I believe or I've heard he voted..."

Let's have it please. And no chain pulling or red herring , that is both puerile and stupid.
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159491 Jun 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
<quoted text>
No, slug. I think God, whoever he is, is not the tyrant the Bible makes him out to be. All murders, rapes, wars, torture have been blamed on him, on "his intervention". Not so. Man is evil and God is not, he just gets the blame. You don't get it do you? I say God is good, man is often bad. YOU say God is bad, and man is mostly good. You are not very knowledgeable in this area, best you keep quiet and go light some candles.
That makes no sense at all! Who should reman quiet? Doofus
Justice LRS

Shreveport, LA

#159492 Jun 13, 2013
Jacques from Ottawa wrote:
wojar wrote:
<quoted text>
Population bottleneck analysis of the human genome has revealed that humans emerged as a group, thousands of them. There was never a population bottleneck as extreme as a single mating pair. The single mating pair story is exactly that, a story.
The DNA evidence from both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome unequivocally establishes that both species are descended from a common ancestor. The biblical account of first humans being immortal but who became mortal after 'sin' is simply busted. If there were a first human, whether you call that person Adam or Eve, all of their cousins, brothers, sisters, and clan members were non-human? And Adam's mother was not human? Nonsense. The data makes it a dead cinch conclusion. The born immortal Adam and Eve first human mating pair story is a myth.
<quoted text>
The typical schoolyard bully answer who does not understand one iota of what he just attempted to read LMAO (LRS tm reg'd).
As I've often said, and I repeat :
Albert Einstein : "Yes, class, E=MC2 "
Justice ha ha LRS raises hand
Albert Einstein : "Yes, justice ha ha LRS"?
Justice ha ha LRS : "Dumbazzbastard buttflapper"
What made you such a bitter and angry soul?

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#159493 Jun 13, 2013
Patriot wrote:
The Usurpation of the Presidency is an Act of War
Arrest Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Saebarkah Under the Aliens and Seditions Acts, Publicly Try Him for Espionage, and Then Legally Execute Him for Treason! Then go after his NWO handlers.
http://www.commieblaster.com/ineligible/
http://drkatesview.wordpress.com/2011/09/18/i...
A mind is a terrible thing to waste patriot. Stop believing everything you want to hear and wished were true.

The rest of the world properly addresses our duly elected president as “President Obama”

What one is otherwise or also known as to an ignorant birfoon always has and always will be irrelevant and forever dismissed as lunacy.
wojar

Bristol, CT

#159495 Jun 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're quite amusing, quite stupid and naive but amusing none the less! LMAO
DNA analysis of genetic diversity in the human genome has disproved the idea of a single mating pair as founder population. Sorry. Meanwhile there are so many independent molecular genetic examples, for example the GULO pseudogene that establish a common ancestor of the human and chimp. Mutated alu elements in the GULO pseudogene are in the same positions in both species. Either God is a divine merry prankster or you believe a person can reasonably expect to win powerball 100 times in succession. The science is unequivocal.
wojar wrote:
Population bottleneck analysis of the human genome has revealed that humans emerged as a group, thousands of them. There was never a population bottleneck as extreme as a single mating pair. The single mating pair story is exactly that, a story.
The DNA evidence from both the human genome and the chimpanzee genome unequivocally establishes that both species are descended from a common ancestor. The biblical account of first humans being immortal but who became mortal after 'sin' is simply busted. If there were a first human, whether you call that person Adam or Eve, all of their cousins, brothers, sisters, and clan members were non-human? And Adam's mother was not human? Nonsense. The data makes it a dead cinch conclusion. The born immortal Adam and Eve first human mating pair story is a m.th
wojar

Bristol, CT

#159496 Jun 13, 2013
And human chromosome 2 resulted from a fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of an ancestor. Indeed, chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 if stitched together would have the same genes in the same arrangement as the human. Chromosomes fusions are well known in genetics, and mechanisms elucidated.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#159497 Jun 13, 2013
Rogue Scholar 05 wrote:
<quoted text>
1] A reporter is not a document expert and how do we know if this reporter is non-partisan?
2] This issue has been addressed many times and even the Hawaiian government will not confirm whether or not the jpeg image is a copy of any State of Hawaii document! All they have commented on is the "information" which they say is correct. But they did not mention whether or not there was any deleted information.
The fallacy is that a document expert is needed to prove anything. Obama’s short form BC has always been official proof of his POB. It is your alternate fable that has proven to be wholly inadequate and your inability to distinguish fact from fiction.

“I have seen the original records filed at the Department of Health and attest to the authenticity of the certified copies the Department provided to the President that further prove the fact that he was born in Hawaii.”
http://hawaii.gov/health/vital-records/News_R...

To you and the birfoon brigade of course this means the DOH did not verify Obama was born in Hawaii, but you can bet your ass to the sane world they in fact did. Who cares about a jpeg image? The HDoH says he was born there and they have the records to prove it. You on the other hand have nothing but your silly suspicions which legally amount to doodoo.

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#159498 Jun 13, 2013
Nazrat wrote:
Ed Snowden voted for Obama..... twice!
So did I!
Ellen1

Arlington, MA

#159499 Jun 13, 2013
Re: "2] This issue has been addressed many times and even the Hawaiian government will not confirm whether or not the jpeg image is a copy of any State of Hawaii document! All they have commented on is the "information" which they say is correct. But they did not mention whether or not there was any deleted information. "

What they said was that the facts MATCH. That means that there cannot be any deleted information There can be no more facts or less facts on one than the other or they would not MATCH.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#159500 Jun 13, 2013
Poppo wrote:
<quoted text>
A mind is a terrible thing to waste patriot. Stop believing everything you want to hear and wished were true.
The rest of the world properly addresses our duly elected president as “President Obama”
What one is otherwise or also known as to an ignorant birfoon always has and always will be irrelevant and forever dismissed as lunacy.
Please DO NOT any longer WASTE yours ... then ...
``````````
Alexander Hamilton
Following the American Revolution, Hamilton studied law under James Duane. Hamilton qualified to practice law in record time. Duane schooled Hamilton in the natural law of Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss proponent of the Leibniz.[Vattel's Law of Nation's

Hamilton played a crucial role in convincing the population of the new American republic of the necessity to call a Constitutional Convention to establish a new Constitution, because the government of the Articles of Confederation was not functioning.

http://east_west_dialogue.trip od.com/vattel/id5.html

Minor v. Happersett

Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167; paraphrasing Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations,*book I, chapter XIX, section 212.^ Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168. "For the ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happers...

*book I, chapter XIX, section 212.

§ 212. Citizens and natives.

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. <<--<<<

As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.

The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.

I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
American Lady

Danville, KY

#159501 Jun 13, 2013
Minor v. Happersett
Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167; paraphrasing Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations,*book I, chapter XIX, section 212.^ Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168. "For the ...

Opinion of the Court
The opinion (written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite) first asked whether Minor was a citizen of the United States, and answered that she was, citing both the Fourteenth Amendment and earlier common law. Exploring the common-law origins of citizenship, the court observed that "new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization" and that the Constitution "does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens." Under the common law, according to the court, "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."[12] The court observed that some authorities "include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents"—but since Minor was born in the United States and her parents were U.S. citizens, she was unquestionably a citizen herself, even under the narrowest possible definition, and the court thus noted that the subject did not need to be explored in any greater depth.[13]

Notes
12.^ Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167; paraphrasing Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations, book I, chapter XIX, section 212.

13.^ Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168. "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happers...

The Fourteenth Amendment and a “natural born citizen”
A common misunderstanding of “natural born” citizenship comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, but a strict reading of the fourteenth amendment is quite clear that this only conveys an at birth naturalized citizenship.

Those born in the United States at the time of adoption and afterwards were only citizens.

Those who wrote the amendment knew exactly what they were doing.

Because of the distinctive use of “natural born citizen” and “citizen,” in Article II, Section 1 the simple fact that being born in the United States does not make one a “natural born citizen,” it only makes one “a citizen.”

The Fourteenth amendment states in Section 1,
Section 1 -“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Obviously missing is the conveyance of “natural born” status to these citizens. In fact what is obviously included in the text is the term “naturalized.” This section has several clauses, the first deals with citizenship.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The second deals with prohibiting the states from passing laws denying the protection of citizenship from any citizen,“natural born” or naturalized.

No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The fifth section details something very important, it reads ...

http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage...
American Lady

Danville, KY

#159503 Jun 13, 2013
The fifth section details something very important, it reads

Section 5 –“The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

Article 1, Section 8 enumerated the powers Congress has. The only power Congress has over citizenship is found here. It reads,

“To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;”

To make the freed slaves citizens, naturalization was the only power the 14th Amendment granted Congress to use. Look it up in the Constitution. Congress had no intention and no authority to making everyone born under the 14th Amendment “a natural born citizen.” This is born out by Congressional records regarding the debate of the Fourteenth Amendment. By the chief architect of Section 1 of this amendment.

“I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen; but, sir, I may be allowed to say further, that I deny that the Congress of the United States ever had the power or color of power to say that any man born within the jurisdiction of the United States, and not owing a foreign allegiance, is not and shall not be a citizen of the United States.” John A. Bingham,(R-Ohio) US Congressman, Architect of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), Cf. U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

There is no doubt that anyone born under the 14th Amendment who is not subject is a “naturalized citizen,” or just “a citizen,” as the Amendment states. They are not natural born citizens.

To further understand why this is so, is to look at the first clause carefully.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.

The words “born or naturalized” are joined with the conjunction “or,” and logically an or implies either of the two are equal. What they are equal in is being a citizen. Not “a natural born citizen.” This expressly negates the idea that simple birth of a person who is “subject to the jurisdiction” confers the coveted “natural born” status. If the term “citizen” did in fact convey a “natural born” status, then who were naturalized would be considered “natural born.”
Obviously, this is not the case, as it would mean that people like Kissinger, Albright and Schwarzenegger could run for office. Clearly, the Fourteenth Amendment is not conferring “natural born” status on anyone,... and bestows the coveted “natural born citizen” title to the children of citizens, while affirming simple citizenship to the children born to aliens. <<--<<<

As you can see from the intent of the Founding Fathers to the Supreme Court decision that “a natural born” is the child of citizens. A natural born citizen is not the child of an alien. In this there is no doubt. The question now that we seek answered is that Barack Hussein Obama, II is both the child of an alien who never had any intention on becoming a naturalized citizen and the child of a citizen minor.

If Barack Hussein Obama, II was in fact born in Hawaii, he is a citizen under Jus soli and afforded all rights any citizen has.

But he is not a citizen under Jus sanguinis, because we have laws that dictate how Jus sanguinis citizenship can be transferred.

If Barack Hussein Obama, II cannot claim citizenship under Jus sanguinis then he is not a natural born citizen.

http://tinyurl.com/7rro6gj
American Lady

Danville, KY

#159504 Jun 13, 2013
There three ways for a person claim citizenship, what most of us think of first is called Jus soli,“the right of the soil,” which is the physical location your place of birth.

The second is what is called Jus sanguinis,“the right of blood,” which you inherit from your parents.

The third is a combination of Jus soli and Jus sanguinis, and it is this combination that determines if one is a natural born citizen.

http://tinyurl.com/7rro6gj

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#159505 Jun 13, 2013
Linktv org wrote:
<quoted text>
JESUS was not just a prophet HE IS GOD and HUMAN.
You cannot have it both ways.
JESUS was either a NUT or He really was GOD's only SON.
--------
1 John 2:22
Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist—he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also.
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
John 14:6
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Did Jesus not write anything of his own? Of course he didn’t. What you post are quotes from the gospel according to John (whoever he was) which differs from that according to Matthew, Mark and Luke (whoever they were)

Jesus if he existed at all certainly had some nutty ideas and for that he was obviously crucified; and since no one has established the existence of any gods it would be a bit premature to commence burdening them with sacrificial sons already.

Surely you can understand why the primitive notion of human sacrifice would be totally repugnant to the enlightened mind can you not? Of course you can’t. Some would say, Lord help us if the Christians ever seize control. LOL………

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159506 Jun 13, 2013
Justice LRS wrote:
<quoted text>
What made you such a bitter and angry soul?
Well, how about my copying your language? It's YOUR dumbazzbastard, not mine. I don't talk like that.

“Bonjour Hello Buongiorno Hola”

Since: Feb 12

Ottawa

#159507 Jun 13, 2013
wojar wrote:
And human chromosome 2 resulted from a fusion of chromosomes 12 and 13 of an ancestor. Indeed, chimp chromosomes 12 & 13 if stitched together would have the same genes in the same arrangement as the human. Chromosomes fusions are well known in genetics, and mechanisms elucidated.
you're educating me and I don't mind at all. Er, hmmm, think you've lost the birthers, particularly Justice ha ha LRS and Rogue OMG Scholar.
American Lady

Danville, KY

#159510 Jun 13, 2013

Since: Oct 09

Moreno Valley, CA

#159511 Jun 13, 2013
American Lady wrote:
<quoted text>
Please DO NOT any longer WASTE yours ... then ...
``````````
Alexander Hamilton
Following the American Revolution, Hamilton studied law under James Duane. Hamilton qualified to practice law in record time. Duane schooled Hamilton in the natural law of Emmerich de Vattel, a Swiss proponent of the Leibniz.[Vattel's Law of Nation's
Hamilton played a crucial role in convincing the population of the new American republic of the necessity to call a Constitutional Convention to establish a new Constitution, because the government of the Articles of Confederation was not functioning.
http://east_west_dialogue.trip od.com/vattel/id5.html
Minor v. Happersett
Happersett, 88 U.S. at 167; paraphrasing Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations,*book I, chapter XIX, section 212.^ Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. at 168. "For the ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_v._Happers...
*book I, chapter XIX, section 212.
§ 212. Citizens and natives.
The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. <<--<<<
As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.
The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it.
The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.
I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
http://constitution.org/vattel/vattel_01.htm
I’m I missing something here AL? The guy I voted for is president and will have been when he finishes his term for eight years. The nonsense you proffer was a loser from the gate and to date only resonates within the caves of the ignorant birfoon.

What’s amazing is how you can actually see that your folly has gotten you absolutely nowhere yet can still somehow seriously believe imminent victory is just around the corner. Your silly pronouncements never has and never will be true and the sooner you realize that the better off you’ll be

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 26 min Earthling-1 47,069
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Tony Rome 1,115,621
Minimum Wage and Unemployment Model 4 hr Goh 1
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) 5 hr Top of the Heap 4,054
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 6 hr KiMerde 50,063
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 6 hr Mister Tonka 98,373
Group of thieves hit Bentley Gold Coast store 7 hr Go Blue Forever 4
Chicago Dating
Find my Match

Chicago Jobs

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]